Attorney Replaced In Legal-fee Case

September 4, 1986|By GARY ENOS, Staff Writer

SUNRISE -- Two months after rejecting an out-of-court settlement in a dispute over former City Council president John Montgomery`s legal fees, the City Council has replaced the attorney who advised the city not to settle the case.

In an emotional debate at Tuesday`s City Council meeting, two council members who opposed the move said it signaled a change in the council`s intention not to settle the issue of Montgomery`s legal fees.

Montgomery is seeking payment of $188,000 in legal fees for criminal cases dating to 1984 in which he was a defendant. His attorney has filed suit against the city to recover $78,000 of the total.

Later in the meeting, the council gave tentative approval to a $23.6 million budget for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1. The budget calls for a slight decrease in city taxes.

The council voted 3-2 to hire attorney Henry Latimer of the firm of Fine Jacobson Schwartz Nash Block & England to represent the city in the Montgomery dispute, replacing attorney Doug Johnson. The vote came after James Weck, an attorney who was working with Johnson, asked to withdraw from the case.

Weck recommended that the council retain Johnson on the case, but council members opted to hire Latimer, whose firm has defended the city in many lawsuits in the past.

Latimer also will represent the city in former Mayor John Lomelo`s lawsuit to recover $47,000 in sick and vacation pay and a suit in which Montgomery, Lomelo and council member Bernie Weiselberg are accused of illegally authorizing payments to former city lobbyist Spike Leibowitz.

Council members Bill Colon and Steve Effman voted against hiring Latimer after Johnson said Latimer favored an out-of-court settlement of the cases. On advice from Johnson, the council recently rejected a settlement in which Montgomery would have received about half of the $188,000 in legal fees.

``You don`t change horses in midstream,`` Effman told his colleagues before the vote. ``If you vote for this, I will take it that the majority wishes to settle these cases.``

Contacted at his office on Wednesday, Latimer said he would have to study the cases more closely before advising the city on whether to settle out of court.

But Latimer said recent cases appear to support Montgomery`s claim that the city should pay his legal fees because he was accused, though not convicted, of criminal actions performed as a council member.

``When an agent of the city incurs legal expenses, the city is obligated to pay,`` Latimer said in interpreting the judgments in recent cases.

While on the council in November 1984, Montgomery was indicted on charges of mail fraud, extortion and filing false income-tax returns. He was cleared of all charges except the income-tax counts, for which he was placed on probation, fined $10,000 and given a five-year suspended sentence.

Under the settlement rejected by the council in June, Montgomery would have received $95,000 from the city and would have been removed from the suit in which he is accused of improperly signing a city check.

In return, Montgomery`s attorney would have dropped the lawsuit to recover a portion of Montgomery`s legal fees. The attorney, Kenneth Lipman, has indicated he plans to sue the city for the entire $188,000 in legal costs.

In other business, the council gave tentative approval to a proposed 1986-1987 budget of $23.6 million after only one resident spoke at the first public budget hearing.

Under the proposed budget, which will be considered at a second public hearing on Sept. 16, home owners would pay $3.92 per $1,000 of assessed property value in taxes next year, down from $3.95 in the current budget.

The owner of a home valued at $75,000 would pay $196 in city taxes after a $25,000 homestead exemption, $1.50 less than the current tax bill.

Colon and council member Mike Stern voted against the budget, saying the city was spending too much of its surplus to balance revenues and expenses.